Likely voters oppose marriage initiative

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/18/8

[SmithL]

Fifty-one percent of likely voters in the state oppose Proposition 8 on the November ballot, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a Field Poll released today. The poll shows voters are divided by where they live, their age, gender and political party.

For Prop. 8:

"I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. It's only controversial to narrow-minded people. ... I think the opposition (to same-sex marriage) has to do with being close-minded about homosexuality. Or maybe people are afraid of it."

[ivyleaguebrat]

Lol.. Isrul, for 90% of that 5000 years, no human on earth knew that the Earth was round.

I mean.. I don’t really disagree with you, but I find your argument absurd. You’re appealing to the wisdom of people who, by our standards, knew next to nothing.

[fwdude]

I, for one, intent to stand and be counted by donating to ProtectMarriage.com, the organization that sponsors the amendment.

Donate at least $1,000 and you get your name listed on a homo-leftist hate site that you can proudly display to your friends and relatives.

[fwdude]

I, for one, intent to stand and be counted by donating to ProtectMarriage.com, the organization that is sponsoring the amendment.

Donate at least $1,000 and you get your name listed on a homo-leftist hate site that you can proudly display to your friends and relatives.

[fwdude]

Does a 672 voter sample sound like an appropriate size to anyone here who is lerned in statistics?

[UndauntedR]

It implies a margin of error of about 3.8%

Most polls try to go over 1000 to get it around 3%... but regardless...

[isrul]

You must surely include all those whose writings are included in the bible. And those sages from every civilization. By your logic, it would be logical to challenge the proscription against murder or any other behavior that harms members of a society. we’re not talking about science. We’re talking about what makes society flourish nd what makes it die. It is your argument that is absurd.

[ivyleaguebrat]

My only argument was in opposition of the assumption that society having done something for X number of years is any indication that that thing is the right thing to do, except for my implication that the determination should be made from a position of knowledge.

I’m opening to challenging any proscription if the advocates of that proscription rely only on tradition, and not the consequences of abandoning the proscription.

Plenty of opponents to gay marriage cite the potential consequences of gay marriage. I think that is perfectly rational, and a compelling line of argument if there is evidence to support the probability of those consequences occuring.

However, I do not that that just because society has done something for X (large) number of years, that that is, ipso facto, evidence that doing the opposite will make our society die.

[ivyleaguebrat]

However, I do not that that just because...

I do not *think* that just because....

[isrul]

Okay. But I think if a tiny minority of people want to change a universal concept of every civilization, the burden is upon them to make a valid case as to why this would be better than the current paradigm. And gain universal acceptance rather than trying to impose their particular peculiarity.

[ivyleaguebrat]

There will hardly ever be "universal acceptance" of anything. If what you're saying is that the decision should be made by popular majority (as a result of the prevailing side having made "a valid case as to why this would be better"), and not by the Courts, then I certainly respect your position.

If what you're saying is that all decisions should be made by popular majority, I respectfully disagree. If we suddenly decided to operate under direct democracy, I am confident I would not be pleased with the results. I am also confident most conservatives would not be pleased with the results.

Virtually everything about Western civilization has changed, in fundamental ways, in periods of a lot less than 5000 years. That marriage being between a man and a woman is one of the few things that have survived is probably the reason many people are so adament about preserving that paradigm.

But in my view, most of the ways in which Western civilization has changed, and continues to change, have a lot more practical consquences for the future of our society, and the individuals of which it consists, than whether two guys can be married under the law. In other words, if our nation survived revolution, civil war, abolition, reconstruction (Jim Crow), universal suffrage, a multipolar political system, two World Wars, a bipolar political system (the Cold War), the transition to a unipolar system (the fall of the Soviet Union), and the Macarena, I'm not sure how to view the argument that two guys getting married is going to be the last straw.

[puroresu]

You’re correct. The net result of the legitimization of same-sex “marriage” will be a massive increase in the power of the government and a contraction of the traditional liberties of the people. That’s been obvious from the very beginning of this so-called “gay rights” crusade, though a lot of people refused to see it. But we now have enough examples of this dynamic that only someone totally blind could continue to maintain that liberty will be enhanced by allowing same-sex “marriage”.

[fwdude]

Liberty will be enhanced as the leftists say, but only for the degenerates who have pushed for a hyper-libertine society at the cost of civil society at large. The homo-activists know this, and have kept this realization under wraps for fear of public backlash. But now they are ever more open about their true goal: the subjugation of the values of traditional Judeo-Christian societal values to the new dictatorial state of political correctness.

You're right. Who could have thought, at the beginning of this movement, that the issue of whether closing down gay bathhouses in the interest of public health would be considered discriminatory and actually wrong? The homo-activist won that battle way back in the 70’s, and we are even now still suffering from the reverberations of that new way of “thinking.”